RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Influenza (flu) is an acute viral infection of the respiratory tract, which can lead to serious complications for individuals within at-risk groups. Evidence indicates that aspects of organization and delivery within GP practices can have an influence on the rates of flu vaccination uptake. Positive deviance is a methodological approach that facilitates identification of factors associated with high performance. OBJECTIVE: To use positive deviance to isolate factors associated with high performance by comparing GP practices achieving high and low flu vaccination uptake. METHODS: This was a qualitative study. A total of 18 practice managers and 2 GPs from 20 GP practices participated, 10 with high and low vaccination rates, respectively. Telephone interviews were conducted, audio recorded and fully transcribed. Framework Analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: High uptake practices were more likely than low uptake practices to have a lead member of staff who demonstrated tenacity, have aspirational uptake targets, have developed and used additional prompts within their IT systems to identify eligible patients, have GPs who were opportunistically vaccinating and use phone calls as a first-line strategy to invite patients for vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first known qualitative study to identify strategies used by UK GP practices to deliver seasonal flu vaccination programmes. It is one of few studies using the robust and novel approach of positive deviance to inform health care recommendations. This approach has offered new and more nuanced insights into GP practice factors associated high flu vaccination uptake beyond those captured through large-scale survey research.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Sistemas Recordatorios/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicina General , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto , Investigación Cualitativa , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
To determine whether the recommended screening interval for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the UK can safely be extended beyond 1â year. Systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness studies. Nine databases were searched with no date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, prognostic or economic modelling studies which described the incidence and progression of DR in populations with type 1 diabetes mellitus or type 2 diabetes mellitus of either sex and of any age reporting incidence and progression of DR in relation to screening interval (vs annual screening interval) and/or prognostic factors were included. Narrative synthesis was undertaken. 14,013 papers were identified, of which 11 observational studies, 5 risk stratification modelling studies and 9 economic studies were included. Data were available for 262,541 patients of whom at least 228,649 (87%) had type 2 diabetes. There were no RCTs. Studies concluded that there is little difference between clinical outcomes from screening 1 yearly or 2 yearly in low-risk patients. However there was high loss to follow-up (13-31%), heterogeneity in definitions of low risk and variation in screening and grading protocols for prior retinopathy results. Observational and economic modelling studies in low-risk patients show little difference in clinical outcomes between 1-year and 2-year screening intervals. The lack of experimental research designs and heterogeneity in definition of low risk considerably limits the reliability and validity of this conclusion. Cost-effectiveness findings were mixed. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a move to extend the screening interval beyond 1â year.